Home | About | Donate

Why Can't the World's Best Military Win Its Wars?

Why Can't the World's Best Military Win Its Wars?

Arnold R. Isaacs

"This time, they think they have it right."

So declared an Associated Press story reporting an upbeat assessment by this country's top military officer at the end of a five-day visit to Afghanistan earlier this spring. Marine General Joseph Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was heading home from the war zone, the AP reporter wrote, "with a palpable sense of optimism" about the U.S.-supported war against Taliban and Islamic State fighters there.

3 Likes

Because the MIC’s Doxology’s last phrase is:

:musical_note:“War without end, a-a-men, a-a-men.”:musical_note:

6 Likes

In anything resembling a conventional war the US can win quickly. It won the First Gulf War within a week. It drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan using mainly fighters of warlords for troops with a few weeks, and it toppled Saddam within a few weeks. But in Afghanistan and Iraq the really difficult part came next when the conventional war was over and the US failed to establish stability in both instances.

The US failure to establish stability in Afghanistan and Iraq actually happened in 1990 after the Soviets left the former, and the Iraq/Iran war ended. A relatively small amount of “foreign aid” during that era would have prevented 9-11 and gone a long way toward keeping things settled in the region.

The reason it didn’t happen that way is that there was no money in it for the military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC) that continues to expand its eternal revenue stream courtesy of the eternal occupations and wars that have highlighted the 21st century to date.

5 Likes

Without doubt the US has the world’s most expensive military, but its serial failures to achieve any of its stated goals indicate that it’s something less than “the best.”

6 Likes

This author is so steeped in the mind of a militant that he apparently doesn’t question the legitimacy of any war to begin with, nor the larger truth that all of these “lost battles” are indeed one big ongoing victory for the US Empire and it’s many many parasitical profiteers.

And also, this never questioning 9/11 that opened the gates of hell in the first place gets old, nearly 17 years worth. And so does the label of tinfoil hat nuttery (although there is most definitely that) for asking questions based on logical analysis. Mass surveillance, militarized police force with hardened soldiers of post 9/11 wars of Empire, trillions and trillions of USD spent and piled on the debt that will for decades be turned against US citizens as a basis for ongoing"austerity", and first not last, the vast slaughter of innocents predicated upon a conspiracy theory that doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

And these war pigs are just getting started.

9 Likes

Quack quack quack.

The US’s proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan included allying with Saudi Arabia to spread Wahhabism to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, which ultimately laid the foundation for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Good ole Jimmy Carter knows a lot about this.

In Iraq, the US had installed Saddam in the first place, and actively supported his regime in the war against Iran, including supplying chemical weapons and assistance in deployment of those weapons against Iranians.

As for 9/11. Question.

Your overall point about the MIC and its pursuit of the end of never ending wars is correct.

1 Like

Before his death in 1999, Col. Summers liked to tell about a meeting he had with a North Vietnamese colonel named Tu while he was with a delegation visiting Hanoi in 1975. At one point, Summers told Tu, “You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield.” Tu paused for a moment, then replied, “That may be so. But it is also irrelevant.”

4 Likes

Really? The question in the header is so damn dumb and the answer is so phucking obvious; because the Bank$ters and the MIC wouldn’t make any money!!!

1 Like

Why Can’t the World’s Best Military Win Its Wars?

Easy, there ain’t no money to be had in winning.

1 Like

CI asked a former US colonel, a very knowledgeable guy who became an academic after the Vietnam war, as to why the US lost. “It’s their country,” he said simply.

Ho Chi-Minth implied much the same thing when he said the Vietnamese would fight till the last man. With such a mentality, in a mountainous country and the backing of Its neighbor China as well as the Soviet Union, they could fight forever. The US couldn’t fight on without eventually going bankrupt, even if the war protestors were to be silent. As it was, the bad situation became worse when the American middle class started opposing the war. Sun Tzu’s full quote includes knowing oneself and knowing others. The US not only didn’t know the enemy: it didn’t know itself too.

2 Likes

An interesting article to be sure, but definitely biased against the people and militaries being trained and supported by Americans, yet Americans themselves may be even more corrupt than their opposites in other armies. I am thinking of the $2.3 trillion that is missing and unaccountable from the Pentagon (you know, what Rumsfeld told the World about on 9/10). If such huge amounts of money have been irretrievably lost in the military system, than that system is beyond corrupt!

3 Likes

USA USA USA… SPLAT. If they kill millions over there, they’ll kill millions right here at home. The American people are not fighting back at their growing enslavement. My mother bought a new 3 bedroom house in 1956 for under $10,000 with a mortgage payment of $34 a month.

3 Likes

Because they are not wars; they are military occupations, resisted by guerilla tactics. The Brits learned about them in 1776 at the hands of the Bennington, Vermont sharp shooters.

3 Likes

If war is profitized and forced to abide by the “rules” of perpetual growth… that is, if someone must make money in this hyper capitalized system in order to undertake anything of worth (or that is considered to be worthwhile through the capitalist lens)… then there is absolutely no reason to win a war, all that remains is incentive to continue to make war.

The only solution? War’s costs must be measured to be greater than its capitalized profit margins. It is unlikely that anyone who cannot see that there are aspects of a civilized society are best left in the costs rather than the profits columns would recognize the perversity and self destruction inevitable in making war a growth enterprise.

Don’t duck quack? How did your cluck turn into a quack? Very strange.

The reasons for the disasters in both Afghanistan and Iraq seem pretty clear. Both are countries that are severely divided along ethnic and/or religious lines. Unless you wind up with a government representative of all major groups you are asking for the trouble. The Iraq situation is best known, The Shiite majority elected someone from a Shiite religious party as leader and the government was essentially all Shiites. Of course, the former rulers of Iraq, the Sunnis, revolted and Mission Accomplished became Mission Failed. Afghanistan has four major ethic groups. The Taliban are Pashtuns. Karzi was elected and he was not a Pashtun. Needless to say this did not sit well with the Pashtuns which made it relatively easy for the Taliban to come back into the country and continue fighting. The lesson is that when you topple a government, no matter how authoritarian it is, when it is not replaced by a representative government in a country divided by ethnicity or religion expect the fighting to resume.

“Full Spectrum Dominance” indeed. More like Full Spectrum Insanity and Full Spectrum Corruption. Since Vietnam, all of our wars have been good for the few…disastrous for the many. More than any other factor…far more…our wars of choice, not of necessity, are the #1
cause of most of our social and economic problems. Those who don’t get this are simply not looking or thinking deeply enough.

1 Like

…and still doesn’t. Most of the World knows us better than we know ourselves. We are captive to our mythologies.

2 Likes